7:00 p.m. – Statement of Open Public Meetings Act Compliance read by Chairwoman Deborah Nielson:“As required by the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate Notice of this meeting has been provided which Notice specified the time and place of the meeting to the extent known at that time. The Notice was posted on the bulletin board at the Municipal Building, mailed to The Daily Record, The Star Ledger, and The Citizen as well as other newspapers and it was placed on file in the Township Clerk’s office. This meeting has been properly noticed to the public in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act.”

Presentation about Montville scouting and the Patriots Path Council by Andrew Adamo of Troop #777.Boy Scout Troop #777 and Cub Scout Pack #777 are charted to the Trinity Baptist Church of Montville.The troop consists of 42 scouts, 26 cub scouts, and 15 weblos.They do cleanup projects at Camp Dawson and Trinity Baptist Church, march in the 4th of July parade, carol for the senior citizens, and have helping hands fellowship dinners.They performed 90 hours of service projects in 2008.They would like to further help the community.If you have projects for us, please contact Scoutmaster Eric Maynard.

PUBLIC HEARING – HATFIELD CREEK:Frank Bastone, Township Administrator, stated he and the Township Engineer put out a number of notices and letters about this.We have received a number of phone calls and written correspondence that has been forwarded to the Township Committee.

Anthony Barile, Township Engineer, reported that they have been working for about two years to obtain approval from the NJDEP to do a project at Hatfield Creek similar to the project done in 2002.Through the course of work in getting the permits, Senator Pennacchio has been involved, and a representative from his office is here this evening – Roseanne.Also, the Township’s consultant, Alex Zepponi, Entec Consulting Engineers, is here this evening.There have been meetings with the DEP.The Township is viewing this project as maintenance to a stream that was moved by a developer some years ago.The DEP is looking at it as channel modifications.When you look at the regulations, that is a big difference.The DEP told us we would have to perform a hydraulic study to justify the work that would have to be performed.New regulations that came into effect:riparian zone – 25-fee wide – the DEP would want to see the land in that zone be in a natural state.Sheds, etc. may have to be removed.I say may because the DEP was very vague.They would come out and look at each individual property.That is what brought us to this public hearing.

Chairwoman Nielson stated the purpose of the riparian zone was so that it would go back to its natural state to reduce flooding.It may be a condition of approval.Before we go forward with the studies, we want to have a public hearing to get your feedback as to who would go along with these conditions.$400,000 was spent on the first project.Barile stated we had estimated this project to be approximately $350,000.

Nielson explained to do this project; we wanted to see if the residents would be in agreement.

Barile displayed map of the riparian zone.

Nielson stated we have had reports of basement and house flooding.Senator Pennacchio and we have tried to get them to soften these regulations.It is not a mandate at this time, but it is possible.

Chairwoman Nielson opened the public hearing.

Chip Gallagher, 16 Lancaster Avenue, Pine Brook, submitted pictures.The flooding has nothing to do with the creek.It is the backup of the Rockaway River.The Township allowed development without retention.Most concerned about the fence – 25-feet – would take half of his garage and laundry room.Leeds Avenue – you would go right through their houses.What happens if you have a fire and you have to rebuild?You won’t be allowed to rebuild.He spoke of silt removal, the impact on the sale of their property, compensation on inverse condemnation.

Nielson stated she assumed the DEP would have some provisions to work with the residents.I don’t think the Township Committee is looking at condemnation and reduction in property values.We are trying to work with you to try to solve a problem.

Barile stated they are not sure at this time of the extent of the riparian zone.Parkway Drive North – silt removal.Last years, we contracted a project just above Brittany Road to rebuild one of the banks.That should reduce some of the silt in the creek.

Jean Kuzmak, 17 Crescent Road, Pine Brook, stated originally the brook was very far from her house.Right now, it is 15 feet from her house.The bank needs some type of retention.She has been asking the town to do that.She cannot give 25 feet.For 38 years, when the town does dredging, they stop at Crescent Road and don’t go any further.

Nielson asked if she has flooding in her home.Kuzmak responded no, she has a bi-level.It goes all around her house.

Barile stated the last project the Township had some problems with property owners giving access.As far as the bank, we did look at it for this project, but the State did not want that.They are not looking for us to restore the banks to a straight line.

Ken Devitt, 24 Avalon Drive, Pine Brook, asked if the question of getting the creek back to its natural alignment came up during the last project.Barile answered yes.

Ken stated the drainage easement on their deeds – didn’t the first project set a precedent?Barile stated the DEP is looking at this as a totally separate project – there are new reviewers and new regs.Barile stated the DEP has a restriction on the amount of bank that can be restored.

Ken asked if the Township Committee is being asked to approve the hydraulic study or the whole project.Barile answered just the study.The Township Committee wanted to know how the residents felt about this project.The cost of the study is approximately $26,000.If we do the study and it presents justification that the flood storage benefits of the project are significant, then we could continue at that point or we could make a decision not to continue.

Ken stated he is in favor or maintaining the creek.The change in 2002 was significant.It would be difficult for me to give up 25 feet.I am in favor of the creek project.We get flooding in our backyard.It needs current maintenance.

Alex Zepponi, Consultant, as far as additional analysis, we have to go through and look at every siltation that is within the study area.There is no doubt that the silt is getting worse.As the silt builds up, the backwater will get deeper and deeper.Historical data is important, but the stream is dynamic.Conditions now will be just as important as what happened historically.

Ron Sang, 34 Avalon Drive, Pine Brook, stated he has never seen flooding in their area.The only time that flooding occurred was 20 to 25 years ago.As you cleaned up that creek, you only had a foot of water in the creek in that area.The flooding that recently happened when Changebridge Road closed partially – the creek did not flood.You seem to be creating a problem where one does not exist.There may be problems elsewhere for other reasons.

Kawal Ahluwalia, 36 Avalon Drive, Pine Brook, stated 25 feet – what if in the future they say 50 feet?Unless you have the knowledge of exactly the impact, then why should you do the project?I think you shouldn’t even spend the $25,000.These are bad economic times.

Jay Parcel, 7 Crane Drive, Pine Brook, stated he has been involved in this project for a long time.Seeing the flooding firsthand, there was an improvement after the cleanup in 2002.I don’t understand how the State can place the restrictions, 25 feet.I was hoping Senator Pennacchio could get involved in that.The construction above us – they were dumping the water on us.It did improve after the dredging.If we can get something done, it did help last time.

Nielson stated if the State did require restrictions or plantings, would you be in favor of that?Parcel answered sure.

Cliff Neukrug, 15 Rennes Street, Pine Brook, stated at this point, I would rather give up some property to stop the flooding.I did have flooding up to my window.In favor of the project.

Vincent Viscio, 15 Merlin Place, Pine Brook, stated he is on the East side of the creek.The creek is a flash-flood creek.It is absolutely the responsibility of the Township to maintain the creek.It is not the residents’ responsibility.Yes, I had flooding in my basement.Yes, I would go along with the riparian buffer, but it makes no sense.

Jory Schlenger, 25 Manchester Way, Pine Brook, asked are we solving the real problem?If silt is removed, are you causing more of a problem?I am opposed to this.I think the riparian zone is unfortunate if there is any required, and I guess we don’t know when it would be decided.

Barile stated if the study shows that the project would be beneficial, then in the final review of our applications, the State would determine what the riparian restrictions would be.

Schlenger stated there was a child that drown in the creek.It was a 3-fee wide lovely creek.Then the people who developed the project made it a 6-feet wide creek.Riparian zone – additional breeding grounds for mosquitoes, loss of property usage, value loss.How many homes are affected?How many homes will be helped?Is this the best use of public funds?Would fences have to come down?There are a lot of unanswered questions.

Zepponi stated with regard to the future – the silt accumulated and was not in there in the past.That stream will behave different than it did in the 1990’s.

Joshi Madhuri, 26 Avalon Drive, stated they have seen lots of heavy rains.Flooding near the creek, but not in my basement.It does clear up pretty quickly.Do you know of any criteria the State might use to determine the riparian restrictions?

Barile answered I’m afraid I don’t.They tell us that after they review the hydraulic study and it proves to be beneficial, then they would review the entire area and make their determination on a property-by-property basis.The purpose of the zone in the DEP’s opinion is to protect the ecology zone.

Bob Filosa, 18 Lancaster Avenue, Pine Brook, stated he is opposed to this whole thing.If we don’t do the project, can the State still come in and institute the riparian zone?Barile stated he doesn’t think they would institute any restrictions unless it is in response to an application.

Gallagher asked does the submission of the application expose us to the riparian zone?Barile and Zepponi agreed they don’t think so.Barile stated the permit would be the legal mechanism.Gallagher asked them to find out.

Don Alecci, 18 Crescent Road, Pine Brook, stated obviously removing silt is good, but your continued use of water retention is bad.In 2002, the Township cleaned the brook – removed the vegetation.If it was not good to have vegetation in 2002, why is it good now to have vegetation?

Barile stated it is not the same situation.What they did was trimmed the brush growing on the banks to allow for free flow.What the State is looking for now is 25 feet beyond the banks so we have a natural area on each side of the stream so as the water drains to the stream it goes through this natural area.The State doesn’t want us to cut any brush on the bank either.

Virginia Alecci, 18 Crescent Road, Pine Brook, stated the brook is not in its natural state.It was turned to put in seven houses.I went to the Township Committee and told them that there was always flooding.309 homes were put in behind me.That is what increased the water.I refused to give the easement.We are a low spot.The Rockaway River is the main culprit.47 years I watched them add and add.It is the backup of the Rockaway River, and the other water coming down.

Parcel stated 20 years ago the Township let the building go on.If we don’t do this, what is the alternative?The situation should be remedied.

Nielson stated that is why we are here tonight.The regulations have changed, and we want to make the public aware.This is where we are at now.We have been trying to work with the DEP.

Hearing no further comments, Chairwoman Nielson closed the public portion of the public hearing.

Nielson stated the Rockaway River – I understand it is not possible to put a check valve in Hatfield Creek.Can it be explored?Zepponi answered it can be explored, but we would have to somehow compensate for the loss of storage – very costly, etc.For all practical purposes, the answer is no to a check value.

Nielson stated the silt removal in 2002 helped the situation.Can we do that again?Zepponi replied no.Barile stated we can do that under a general permit, but it only allows up to 500 feet in length, and there are other qualifications.You have to avoid taking machinery into the channel, etc.There are a lot of criteria to qualify.We would have to apply; and again, it is only for small sections.

Committeeman Sandham asked there is no way to get to the root of the problem of the silt?Barile answered no, it is a combination of things.Zepponi stated this is going to be a forever maintenance issue.

Sandham asked if we go through with the project and a homeowner doesn’t grant access, then what?Barile replied we would only show work on the portions of the creek where we have access.The areas that we de-silt provide additional storage.

Sandham stated let’s say the permitting doesn’t go forward and the flooding gets worse – is there a State agency that would mandate that we have to do this?Barile stated I am not aware of any agency.Zepponi stated in my view what would happen is when the FEMA maps are updated, those 200 homes that are not in the floodplain would be in the flood insurance program.

Committeeman Daughtry stated he would be looking at the end of Normandy Road where the pump station is.Fact from the State – the Rockaway River backs up into Hatfield Creek under certain conditions.Data is available.Zepponi stated that is on the floodplain maps.

Daughtry spoke about the flow from the other direction.Do we have information on that?Zepponi answered on some portions, they are studied streams.

Daughtry stated we need to look at a house – might have the opportunity to buy the house and build a retention basin.I want us to think about that.Would it be big enough to solve the flooding problem?

Zepponi stated this was looked at as a stream maintenance program.If you put the detention in as far South as you can where it can maximize the drainage area that goes to it there would be two problems.That takes the most silt out of the stream, but everything upstream would still have silt deposits.The second thing is the timing.These smaller streams are very flashy.Most times, those streams are out before the peak of the main river.

Daughtry stated with the Rockaway River backing up, we have two dynamics going on at the same time.I am just looking for a better answer.Zepponi stated it is the frequency of the events that need to be looked at.

Nielson stated they bought out homes along River Road years ago.It has been done locally – that was County project.There have been discussions about working with Jersey City to artificially lower the dam, etc. so it would alter the peaking of the Rockaway River.Unfortunately, there are many creeks going into the Rockaway River.

Zepponi stated in the big picture, the Rockaway River is the issue, but locally it is the silted culverts.

Committeewoman Bader stated a number of years ago a large retaining wall was put up along the Rockaway River.There must be studies prior to the wall going in.What has it done to Pine Brook?Zepponi stated in theory there should have been a study to show the impacts of that wall.Bader stated it would be interesting to know if the problems got worse after that wall.

Nielson stated the Township Committee is wrestling with this issue.We are going into our budget sessions.There are two parts to this.The $26,000 study and beyond that, should the project be commissioned, an expenditure of potentially up to $350,000.We will keep the residents posted.We want to work with you.We want to provide safe homes and safe neighborhoods.We will keep you up to date via letters, and you can e-mail Mr. Barile.

PUBLIC PORTION FOR ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:

Phil Fontana, 203 Main Road, Montville, presented a petition to lower the speed limit from 35 MPH to 25 MPH on Main Road #115 going North to #292 Main Road.Residents are in support of this.100% of the local business and residents have signed the petition.There is excessive speeding and there have been accidents.Included with the petition is documentation/pictures of the road and accidents.

The Morris County Assistant Engineer recommended this be brought to the Township.The request has to come from the Township.The County is ready to lower the speed limit.

Nielson stated we will go through the protocol necessary – the Police Chief and the Engineer.Also, will request more enforcement from the police.Requested the Township Administrator follow up and go forward on this.

Hearing no further comments, Chairwoman Nielson closed the public portion.Motion:Bader.Second:Braden.All in favor.Motion approved.

DISCUSSION ITEMS:

NO. 1 – PRESENTATION BY GEOGENIX – SOLAR ENERGY PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING:Sandham stated he is excusing himself from discussion and participation on this because his company was in negotiations with Geogenix.

Sergio Angione, Environmental Commission, stated in an effort to make Montville a greener place to be, we have been looking into solar power.

Phil Stone, Geogenix, presented.Described the technology, incentives, etc.The key for a municipality to get involved is the finances.Propose a municipal lease – 10 years, zero down.Distributed excel sheet indicating the savings.25-year manufacturer’s warranty.Roof mounts.150 kw will take up approximately 15,000 sf of the footprint.We would come in and do an exact analysis of available buildings.South-facing.Service contracts available.Kiosk showing what the rays are producing.There is not a lot of maintenance with solar panels.There are no moving parts.Carbon credits, energy credits.Digital meter.

Nielson thanked Mr. Stone and the Environmental Commission.We will leave this with Mr. Bastone to explore further.

Sandham stated it would behoove us to work with the Board of Education on this.No matter who is doing it.Daughtry stated or the County.

NO. 2 – VEHICLE USAGE POLICY:Item held for future meeting.

NO. 3 – PSE&G:Item held for future meeting.

NO. 4 – SEWER RATES:Bastone reported last year a subcommittee looked at this.An ordinance was introduced in November that did not get adopted.It was turned over to the Long-Term Financial Planning Committee for their recommendation.They had three meetings on this.The committee looked at a variety of alternatives.Two things to accomplish – meet revenue needs over the next four years, and come up with a fairer system than the flat rate.Memo dated February 10, 2009, summarizes changes to the proposed sewer rates that were introduced in November and what the LTFPC recommends today.There is a base rate, there is a rate per 1,000 for sewer usage, and there is a premium rate for high-end commercial and residential.We also came up with two different scenarios for residential – we split out single-family homes from townhouses and condominiums.There is a two-step approach to this that has been submitted.Because the budget goes up in 2009 and then again in 2010 because of debt service, we can implement this over two years.There are two spreadsheets in front of you that recommend the rate for 2009 and then for 2012.

Sandham stated there are so many moving pieces of this puzzle.I don’t think anyone on the LTFPC was happy with all the moving pieces in this model as proposed.Overall, they agreed this is a fair working model.

Bastone stated $170,000 was cut out of the 2009 budget proposal.In addition, we were working originally with 2007 usage data.We were able to get more recent information – 2008 data.

Daughtry stated there is $238,000 at the end of year one we are deferring?Sandham answered correct.

Braden stated he has some issues with the model. I have an issue with the three-tier model.I would prefer a two-tier model.Why are we breaking apartments/condos out?They are washing their cars and have plantings, etc.

Sandham stated single-family homeowners who have lawns that they water and pools that they fill in the summer.You can’t measure that unless you have separate water meters.We agreed to do winter averaging.Winter averaging – you don’t have to do that for condos/apartments.

Braden stated but condos may be using water in the summer for washing cars, plantings, etc.Sandham stated they see that their average is less than 12,000 gallons per quarter and single-family residences are 20,000.Also, one committee member brought up that a lot of people, particularly in the condos, go away in the winter.We can get the most accurate information on usage in condos/apartments in a full-year because they don’t have pools and sprinklers.Any small subset that you look at, you will find flaws.

Discussion regarding non-metered rate – those with wells.

Nielson thanked the LTFPC.Bastone stated in addition, we had a member of the Chamber of Commerce attend all three meetings, and it was very helpful.

Nielson asked non-metered folks average $143 quarter?Bastone answered yes.When we had people here in the fall, the non-metered rate was much higher.Now, I see it is lower.

Sandham stated the average is 16,000 gallons.The non-metered use is slightly lower than the average residential.Discussion average gallons and single-family users.

Bader asked if she would be residential or commercial.What would other agricultural uses be rated?

Sandham stated a non-metered user, whether they are commercial or residential, they are still paying the same flat rate.

Bader asked why are we not looking at water rates also?I believe we will be looking at water rates next year.Bastone stated because they are two separate utilities.A separate revenue stream.Two different rate systems.

Sandham stated the water utility with the amount of revenue generated on its rates.The sewer utility did have a shortfall.

Nielson stated I asked for a history of the sewer and water rate increases.Sewer 2004-05 $88 to $120 flat rate.36% increase.80% of the shortfall is due to bonding for capital projects.I asked for the bonding information.This model includes what we are going to need in terms of capital going forward?

Bastone answered yes, to 2012.It is built into the capital portion, not the debt service portion.Sandham stated we have capital outlay of $300,000 for four years.

Nielson stated philosophy behind this.I know that water and sewer have to stand on their own.My tax bill went up about $100 municipal portion last year.The average home here, the sewer increase is going to be more than $100 a year.I can’t write that off on my taxes.I wrestle with this as opposed to a municipal tax bill.Right now, the sewer portion will need to be subsidized.We have a surplus in water.

Sandham stated the LTFPC recommended that from 2010 on, we split the allocations evenly.The water should go down accordingly.We kept the municipal allocations to the utilities the same until we could look at both.

Nielson stated I wanted to know what the surplus was after the allocation for 2007 and 2008.If we have a surplus in water, can we subsidize sewer in these tough economic times?Bastone answered no, we should not be doing that.

Braden asked for an explanation.Bastone stated it is a regulation of the State that utilities budgets be treated separately and stand on their own.Discussion regarding municipal allocations and government subsidies.

Bastone stated the allocations are based on a methodology.I have dealt with them in other municipalities, and they are governed by the State of New Jersey.Every one of them can be justified.

Bader asked can we lower water and increase sewer?Lower water, increase sewer.Maybe it would be more justifiable to the residents.

Bastone stated you have a situation with a sewer budget that needs to generate additional revenue this year.Today, you are running a deficit in the sewer utility.

Bastone we started doing this because we need to come up with additional revenue for the sewer utility.Also, we wanted to come up with a fairer methodology.We have looked at this in depth.The LTFPC has come up with what they think is a fairer system.

Nielson stated we need to have strong public relations regardless of what we do.I think the public expects us to be lean and mean either by staff reductions or tightening our belt.They don’t 100% believe that we are in between a rock and a hard place.I ask that we suspend the $150,000 allocation from sewer over to the municipal budget for 2009.

Bastone stated if you don’t take the $150,000 allocation from sewer and take the whole $776,000 from water, you are still not generating enough money for the sewer utility.And it doesn’t address the rate for 2010, 11, and 12.

Discussion regarding issues that were or were not brought up to the LTFPC and the scrutinizing of their recommendation.

Nielson stated she does know there needs to be a sewer increase.I would like to try to minimize that.I sat on the subcommittee.The subcommittee’s recommendations were discussed at length here in the Fall.It went to long LTFPC.They looked at it long and hard.There were many versions.The versions I got yesterday do not look like the ones that were discussed and agreed upon two meetings ago.I understand there is no one answer.

Bastone stated they are all variations to the same theme.The bottom-line is the same revenue is being generated.These are nuances to a theme.

Sandham stated take what you got today and tear it up.Take what you got on Friday and it is a bigger increase for 2009.What we were trying to do was give a different model to accommodate you.We were trying to make additional improvements.

Braden stated LTFPC was charged with time constraints.That is why tweaking was going on up to tonight.They needed numbers tonight.

Bastone stated they knew if we did not implement something by April 1, we would then go into another quarter of deficit.

Bastone stated what happened was a retooling so the increase could be done in two steps.

Braden stated we know this is going to be a tough pill for the public to swallow.We have to pay the bills of the utility.What we have in front of us is probably the best model to follow.

Bastone stated no matter how you tweak this, it is going to be a hard pill to swallow – no matter when it is.

Nielson stated so we raised rates 33% in the last three years and now we are going to raise them another 22%?Braden stated in order to pay our bills.

Nielson stated and we are not going to use any surplus available from the water.Bastone stated we are going to look at the water utility.

Braden stated if we can return money in the future…Daughtry and Sandham agreed absolutely.

Braden stated as Jean brought up, why can’t we attack that immediately?Bastone stated it is going to take a certain amount of time.Maybe we can implement it October 1st.I am not making a commitment there.

Mazzaccaro stated you should not look at both right now.There is the model, but we are not sure that model is going to work.We are pretty sure.It may have shortfall or it may bring in a surplus.You have to give it time.Bastone stated the water usage may also change.

Mazzaccaro stated I wouldn’t rush into looking at the water because we know that is working.We also have a loss of revenue from connection fees that is significant.

Nielson asked Mr. Mazzaccaro if he endorses this.Mazzaccaro responded he doesn’t feel the utility has been running as it should have since 2001.I believe that surpluses should have been kept in the respective budgets.I think the process was an excellent process.Sewer is a mandatory connection.That is where all of our money has been expended over the years.If all of that money was not taken, it would have softened the blow right now.We would have had surplus.

Sandham stated that was eight years ago, we all know that.The problem has to be solved.

Bastone stated again this is the fairest system.Everyone has issues with something, but this is the fairest.

Nielson asked I can’t convince anyone up here to use the surplus from water to have an abatement for the year 2009?Bader stated she would take that.Braden stated you may need that surplus if this model doesn’t work.

Sandham stated if we are not reaching strong consensus tonight then we should table this.We should be reaching consensus tonight so we can come forward with an ordinance next meeting.At some point, we are running a deficit.If we can’t reach a consensus, when it gets to ordinance level, it will be pulled apart.

NO. 1 – ORDINANCE NO. 2009-05 AMENDING CHAPTERS 3.02 ENTITLED “FEES” AND 12.39 ENTITLED “DOGS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY” OF THE REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE AND ESTABLISHING FEES FOR THE RENTAL OF THE YOUTH CENTER AND PASSES FOR THE MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP DOG PARK:No changes to the Dog Park fees, just adding them to the fee ordinance.

NO. 2 – ORDINANCE NO. 2009-06 AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE AND REGULATING TRAFFIC VISIBILITY ON CORNER LOTS:

Ordinance is offered for adoption on first reading with second reading and public hearing scheduled for February 24, 2009, at 8 p.m.Motion:Daughtry.Second:Braden.Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.Motion approved.

NO. 3 – ORDINANCE NO. 2009-07 TO CREATE THE POSITION OF MUNICIPAL HOUSING LIAISON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMINISTERING THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE FAIR HOUSING ACT:

Ordinance is offered for adoption on first reading with second reading and public hearing scheduled for February 24, 2009, at 8 p.m.Motion:Daughtry.Second:Braden.Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.Motion approved.

WHEREAS, N.J.S.A. 40A:12-4 authorizes a municipality to acquire property; and

WHEREAS, Todd A. Corham and Gail M. Corham have agreed to convey Deeds over a portion of Block 108, Lot 4 to the Township of Montville as a condition of development approval; and

WHEREAS, Todd A. Corham and Gail M. Corham have executed Deeds and have presented same to the Township for acceptance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the following conveyances from Todd A. Corham and Gail M. Corham to the Township of Montville are hereby accepted:

WHEREAS, N.J.S.A. 40A:12-4 authorizes a municipality to acquire property; and

WHEREAS, Russell G. Pisano and Angela Pisano have agreed to convey Deeds over a portion of Block 125.05, Lots 14, 14.02 and 14.04 (Coppola Court) in the Township of Montville as a condition of development approval; and

WHEREAS, Russell G. Pisano and Angela Pisano have executed Deeds and have presented same to the Township for acceptance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the following conveyances from Russell G. Pisano and Angela Pisano to the Township of Montville are hereby accepted:

WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the Township of Montvillepetitioned the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) for substantive certification of its Housing Element and Fair Share Plan on December 15, 2005; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 5:94-7 and N.J.A.C. 5:80-26.1 et. seq., the Township of Montvilleis required to appoint a Municipal Housing Liaison for the administration of the Township of Montville’s affordable housing program to enforce the requirements of N.J.A.C. 5:94-7 and N.J.A.C. 5:80-26.1 et. seq.; and

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville's has amended Chapter 16 entitled "Land Use Code" to provide for the appointment of a Municipal Housing Liaison to administer the Township of Montville’s affordable housing program.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that Linda White is hereby appointed by the Governing Body of the Township of Montville as the Municipal Housing Liaison for the administration of the affordable housing program, pursuant to and in accordance the Township of Montville’s Land Use Code.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A TREATMENT WORKS APPLICATION WITH THE STATE OF NJDEP – KIDS ‘R KIDS SITE PLAN):Block 138, Lot 8.

WHEREAS, this project has potential for major economic, environmental, health and safety impacts upon all residents of the affected municipalities; and

WHEREAS, contrary to its prior promises to these municipalities that it would make application via the usual and established municipal review process, PSE&G has now bypassed that municipal approval process by making application directly to the New Jersey State Board of Public Utilities (BPU), thereby removing home rule and local oversight over these potential impacts; and

WHEREAS,protecting the rights, health and well-being of residents with appropriate and responsible scrutiny of this project through the BPU application and hearing process by the affected municipalities will now involve significant expenses, budgetary considerations, and hardship to the taxpayers of these municipalities during difficult economic times.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Body of the Township of Montville, realizing the economy of scale and the power of collaborative effort, does hereby state its intention to join in a “Coalition of Concerned Municipalities” and act with these other affected municipalities to safeguard the rights, health and well-being of its residents from the potential impacts of this project; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Township of Montville will appoint a representative (or representatives) of the municipality to act as liaison to this Coalition on its behalf, for the purposes of strategic discussions, teleconferences and/or other public meetings; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be sent to the Governing Bodies of: Andover Township, Boonton Township, Byram Township, East Hanover Township, Fredon Township, Hardwick Township, Hopatcong Borough, Jefferson Township, Kinnelon Borough, Montville Township, Newton Township, Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, Rockaway Township, Roseland Borough, Sparta Township and Stillwater Township; as well as to PSE&G President Ralph LaRossa, U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, U.S. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, U.S. Congressman Scott Garrett, Governor Jon Corzine, State Senators and State Assembly Members from the 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th and 27th Districts, the Boards of Chosen Freeholders of Morris, Sussex and Warren Counties, the New Jersey State Board of Public Utilities, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Mark Mauriello, New Jersey Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council Chairman John Weingart and Executive Director Eileen Swan, and the Office of the New Jersey Public Advocate.

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville sponsors certain events throughout the year and endorses other privately held events for which it lends specified assistance; and

WHEREAS, the Township Committee has adopted a policy whereby it will recognize Township and Township endorsed events by Resolution to be considered on an annual basis.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that there shall be two categories of events run or endorsed by the Township:

Township Events – Events that are run by the Township (Including Board of Education Events.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Township events and Township endorsed events for the year 2009 shall be as follows:

Township EventsTownship Endorsed Events

Senior Picnic

Michelle Sullivan Fund Softball Tournament

Fishing Derby

Town-wide Garage Sale

Montville Day

TCA Picnic

4th of July

Jazz Festival

Clean Communities Programs

Lacrosse Alumni Picnic

Holiday Celebration

VFW Social Events

Egg Hunt

Pet Parents Garage Sale

Pathways/Archways

Rotary Club Pancake Breakfast

Concerts

Truck Day – Pine Brook Jewish Center

Halloween

Soccer Day

Historical Society Events

MBSA Parade

Drug Awareness Events

TCA Ice Skating/Winter Wonderland

Fire Department Events

Kiwanis Events

September 11 Remembrance

Chamber of Commerce Events (Sr. Seminar)

VFW Memorial Events

Band Competition

Relay for Life Event

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Township endorsed events must meet the following criteria:

1.The event must be sponsored by a private non-profit organization located within the Township.

2.The event must be open to all Township residents.

3.Each organization shall be limited to one or two events per year.

4.Each organization is required to inform the Township’s Management Specialist in writing the date of an event at least thirty days prior to the event.The written notice must also include their request of the DPW and/or the Police.Sign requests must be submitted in writing to the Zoning Officer at least thirty days prior to the event.

5.The following assistance from the Township will be available for each endorsed event:

a.DPW assistance for a total of 8 man-hours during normal workweek.

b.DPW assistance for a total of 8 man-hours during the weekend (from May through October)

c.Police Department assistance for a total of 8 hours the date of the event.

NO. 2 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PINE BROOK ROAD IMPROVEMENT, PHASE I PROJECT AND FINAL PAYMENT TO JENICAR CONTRACTORS, INC.:

WHEREAS, Jenicar Contractors, Inc. is the contractor for the Pine Brook Road Improvement, Phase I Project; and

WHEREAS, Anthony P. Barile, Jr., the Township Engineer, has recommended that the Pine Brook Road Improvement, Phase I Project be accepted by the Township and that final payment be made; and

WHEREAS, Jenicar Contractors, Inc. has filed an Affidavit of Release of Claims and the Township Engineer has recommended the waiver of the Maintenance Guarantee since the project has been completed and in operation for over two years.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the Township of Montville accepts as final the Pine Brook Road Improvement, Phase I Project and releases to Jenicar Contractors, Inc. final payment in full.